Tuesday, August 06, 2013

Response to Personal Attacks from the "Anti-Apologist" Shawn McElhinney

By Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong

I have preserved Shawn's gossipy, calumnious comments (in blue below), made on a public Facebook thread (later removed, without any
public retractions), and have replied to them.

***

Were these persons regular joes or were they claiming more "advanced credentials", . . .? . . . to agitate and create controversy is one way that not a few of
the apologetics mentality get attention for themselves and also are
better prepared to hawk their wares -either in book sales, donations to
their "apostolate", or whatever. There are also those who troll threads
for material to gin up controversy for the purposes of attention and
cash. A wrestling promoter named Eric Bischoff wrote a book years back
called Controversy Creates Cash and he could have had the apologetics
movement in mind every bit as much as he did professional wrestling with
that title but that is neither here nor there.Shawn -- with
whom I had been friends -- decided to savagely attack my person and
motives in 2005 when we disagreed on the morality and justifiability of Hiroshima and Nagasaki being nuked:
he for, me against. Since that time, he repeatedly wrote blistering
and repeated attacks against my character on his website. I replied at
length at the time to the numerous outrageous slanders, but on the
urging of a mutual friend (Catholic apologist Dr. Art Sippo),
unilaterally removed all my replies, while Shawn decided to keep all of
his up. But I did later preserve just a few of the choicer tidbits from his bizarre attacks (see #1 in this "Top Ten" paper), and consider them the worst things ever said about me by anyone online, including even the avalanche of insults from the anti-Catholic Baptist luminary James White.

He has also viciously attacked Karl Keating and other apologists. His garbage remains up to this day on his old site, Rerum Novarum. Just search for my name there and you'll find posts like, "On
David Armstrong's Tragic Mental Meltdown": discussing my "pathetic
delusions," etc. You get the idea. Here's my absolute favorite of his
reams and reams of insults and lies at my expense (I am blessed with no
end of belly-splitting laughter over this one, whenever I read it):

. . . your claim to want to dialogue was a sham exactly as I said it
was. You should have had the decency to have admitted to it publicly
rather than try to pretend that you wanted to dialogue. Furthermore, if
you never intended to interact with my arguments, then you have NO BASIS
WHATSOEVER for crying about how soundly I bitchslapped your crap down
publicly . . .

Alas, I'm not
the only apologist in Shawn's huge three-car garage doghouse. For
example, here he is writing about me in boorish and inane fashion, on 10 December 2006:

For one thing, he tries to bring into the picture Dr. Scott Hahn, Steve
Ray, and Pat Madrid as if they are necessarily being viewed by me in the
same light as I do Karl Keating, Jimmy Akin, Mark Shea, and himself.
Secondly, Dave obviously is interested in playing this up in his
predictable Jerry Springeresque way . . . Dave, Jimmy, Mark, and/or their uncritical and fawning sycophants . . .

All
friends of mine: all men I greatly admire . . . but for some reason
Keating, Akin, and Shea are in Shawn's doghouse with yours truly
(honored to be in there with 'em!), while the other three manage to
escape it. What's the huge difference? Well, none, really (all three of
the "good guys" have given very glowing reviews of my work, by the way),
except whether ol' Shawn grants them his Good Housekeeping Seal of
Approval or not! As if anyone cares in the first place. . .!

Not many cared at all about Shawn's endless, War and Peace
pontifications, as he consistently used to get about ten readers per
day, average, on his site. But no doubt he would say that this was
because his sublime profundities were well beyond the grasp of the
unwashed masses of ignorant peasantry. At least he had the eventual
sense to shut the thing down. In past years (before all he could do was
rant against me and other apologists), he actually did quite a bit of valuable work, especially about radical Catholic reactionary errors: some of which I still cite, despite all.

. . . in the words of those great western philosophers The Who: "Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss."

And Shawn is the same old Shawn: acting as usual, like (well, you fill in the blanks) . . .

One
exception to that rule [name]: if he has a slew of yesman amigos to help
him with his dirty work. He does not like one on one contact with
someone who can throw real punches and expose his glass jaw, that's for
sure.

Everyone knows how utterly fearful I
am of one-on-one debate. That's why I have about 700 debates posted
online, because I am scared to death of them. I guess that's why I once
did a talk (in person) with sixteen atheists and agnostics: me being the
only theist (let alone Catholic) in the room. It's obviously the reason
why I have been on national radio shows (Catholic Answers twice),
answering questions live, with no idea what they might be. This sort of
abject fear led me to debate James White spontaneously one night in his
chat room, or take on Matt Slick of CARM fame, or engage anti-Catholic
apologist Jason Engwer in hostile territory at CARM, debating whether
the Church Fathers believed in sola Scriptura. He did so poorly that he split even before it was halfway done.

And we see (above and below) how Shawn "argues". He's the very last person to be lecturing anyone
about how to engage in calm, rational, constructive (minimally ethical
and charitable) argumentation. I would send my three sons to a rabid
hedgehog in heat to learn how to dialogue before I would send them to
Shawn. In any event, good will, attribution of good faith, and mutual
respect are required for any good dialogue to take place -- to be
possible at all -- , per Plato and Socrates (as I have often noted).

. . . this was just another example of Dave wading onto a thread and subject
he did not know as much about as he tried to pretend and could not admit
that lest he lose face. Saimo-saimo with The Venerrrrablleeee
Daaaaaviiiiid basically but I digress

So now I don't know anything about "traditionalism" and it's opposing faction, the radical Catholic reactionaries. That's odd, since
Pete Vere (canon lawyer and co-author with Pat Madrid of a book on the topic) is also participating in these discussions and (to his eternal credit) being very classy: refusing to indulge in
the attacks. It's tough to be neutral like Switzerland but Pete is
managing to pull it off. Kudos! He is friends with all of them over
there, and they obviously respect him.

Pete asked me around 2000-2001 or so to
come work and live at the FSSP place where he was (Scranton diocese in
Pennsylvania). It was being very seriously considered. Isn't that
strange? He must have thought I knew something about the topic: had some sort of qualification. Why, he even credited me with playing some part in his own departure from his former ways, and his very vocation, writing:

Dave Armstrong['s] . . . apologetics ministry was one of God's tools
through which I both reconciled with the Catholic Church and discerned
my vocation as a canonist.

Now, that is quite a feat, to have managed to persuade someone
out of schism or semi-schism (wherever he was; SSPX at one point), while
not having much of a knowledge at all about the subject (which Shawn pontificates is the case, even today). If anyone can figure how that can be, please let me know pronto. My brain can't wrap itself around it, much as I try.

Shawn himself used to be quite effusive in his praise of my
apologetics till he and I disagreed on nuclear war and whether
incinerating 100,000 civilians is right in line with Catholic just war
ethics or not. I'm almost positive that would have included my work in
critique of the radical Catholic reactionaries ("RadCathRs"). In fact, this is indeed documented:

David
Armstrong whose critique of a few section attempts at a revision in
early 2002 (which were subsequently lost in my harddrive crash of May
2002) was nonetheless influential in my approach to this third edition.
(And of course being linked to Dave's ubersite the past few years: a
tremendous circumstance that undoubtedly widened the viewing audience of
this work.)

I was also thanked in the first edition, with many others.Is
this not hilarious? I go from being thanked as "influential" in Shawn's
magnus opus against RadCathRs in 1998 / 2003, to being lied
about as a more or less ignoramus on the topic, in March 2013.

Someone else in the thread claimed that I have little firsthand
knowledge of mainstream "traditionalists." The fact of the matter is that I have
many "traditionalist" friends: folks like David Palm and Ben
Douglass and others. Many (quite a number, actually) follow my blog and
Facebook page. I have many, many Eastern Catholic friends, too.

Isn't it interesting, too, that I have the most cordial, trouble-free
relations (including phone conversations) with someone like Tracy
Tucciarone, who is one of the owners of the influential Fish Eater's
"traditionalist" forum. Others run me down there, too, but she and I
have normal, mutually respectful discussions.

. . . did I not tell you . . . that Dave would find a way of bringing
me into the mix if he could?

Shawn started gossiping about me as soon as he had opportunity to do so, in one of the attack threads. But if I dare respond to his lies, that's me trying to drag him
into the conflict, and somehow being paranoid / mentally ill /
contentious [or insert chosen alternate epithet] . . . this is classic
Shawn polemics. This is how cynical revisionism and creation of fairy
tales proceed: urinating all over the actual facts of the matter, which are plain as day.

I doubt I have said one word to him in
about six years but he is STILL smarting over getting his ass handed to
him back in 2005 and 2006 when he bit off more than he could chew with
me.

Humility or truth-telling about his own deficiencies was never one of Shawn's strong points . . .

I am no psychologist but Dave sure shows symptoms of NPD in the way
he reacts to things and the way he cannot let anything drop.

Oh, of course. No attacks on me would be complete without personality / mental analysis. "NPD" is "Narcissistic Personality Disorder." This is the strictly comedic and entertaining aspect of otherwise tedious and ultra-boring ad hominem
attacks. The anti-Catholics love to do the same thing (this is one of
their favorite slanders; lacking any rational arguments), and Shawn will
readily use any lie from their playbook, on the old principle of "my
enemy's enemy is my friend." Pray for the man. One can only pity one who
feels the need to stoop so low.

It's real simple, folks; makes perfect sense; nothing mentally ill about
it at all. I document because people (ones who want to clash with me)
have a tendency to revise the past. I know this because it has happened
over and over: much first-hand experience. If I didn't keep people's
words (the ones who feel led to personally attack me), they would simply
spin them as if they were no big deal. After all, a person that is
willing to shamelessly lie about another has no compunction about lying
about the lies later on, to cover their own tails and present themselves
in a saintly (or at least situationally faultless) light that never was
the case. I don't give it a moment's thought otherwise. If the thing
rears its ugly head again, I have the documentation. And oh, how people
hate that!!! Shawn agrees completely with this methodology because he does it himself. On the public Facebook group, Banished by Mark Shea: A Support Group, Shawn wrote on 23 March 2013:

. . . if
I can offer one piece of advice for anyone who tangles with MS [Mark Shea], it is
this: document what happened. Keep copies of all written correspondence
either in his comboxes, on your own pages, or whatever and if you can
take screenshots for preservation purposes, do that as well. I am glad I
kept stuff from years past on this stuff not to relive it but instead
to make sure the historical record remains preserved lest folks like him
try and play the role of the historical revisionist viz. what actually
happened and what he would like to pretend happened.

When I deign to cite Shawn's own words, however, all that flies
out the window and he comes back with the old mental illness canard and
gripes about things being years old. He has to. This is his modus operandi. It's like a hog scratching his itch. He's gotta do it!

The actual narcissists and glory-seekers out there wouldn't last a
month in my field, since what they're about is looking for praise and rapt
admiration all the time. That doesn't exactly coincide with apologetics (to
vastly understate it)!

Nothing like the facts . . . They sit in my "Idiotic Comments and Attacks" file. Big Deal!
All Shawn can do these days is sit on the sidelines and lob imbecilic
attacks and flatulent avalanches of words. If he's not going after (with
his rah-rah buddies patting him on the back and indulging his sin), he
can always flail away at his numerous other targets: Karl Keating, Mark
Shea, Jimmy Akin, the class of apologists as a whole, men, women, human
beings, dogs, cats, mice, the ocean; anything on God's green earth will
do, as long as it is a target . . .

I mean, its
been more than SEVEN YEARS now and he is still going around digging up
tidbits from my mothballed weblog from those conflicts that he spins out
of context. He has to do that because context on these things is not
his friend and deep down, he knows it.

Yes; down deep (at least in my better, most honest moments) I know that Shawn is my overlord and superior in every
way: ethically, mentally, intellectually, as a writer, debater, amateur
philosopher, political junkie, as a webmaster (with his ten hits a day
average that he never managed to break out of), as a father (if he is
one), as a sports fan, athlete, cookie-maker, weed-puller, repairer of
can openers, you name it: anything and everything! He'd probably even
beat me in chess and arm-wrestling. But he can't outlaugh me.
When I read his drivel, I laugh and laugh till the cows come home: till
my gut hurts; till I cry a bucket . . . I think he missed his calling as
a comedian.

All this does is
illustrate why I proactively blocked him on FB as soon as I found out he
was on here: I have no interest in retreading old ground and being
trolled by this person.

Oh, that is great news! Delighted to hear it. This is delicious
irony. Shawn sits there attacking and gossiping away in the
slander-thread, while if I try to defend myself at all there, my
comments are deleted.But I am the troll, you see, and he's pure as the driven snow.

[someone else]Boy am I clueless. I don't even know who Dave is.

Count your blessings, [name]!

Obviously a
lot of people have way too much time on their hands, if all they can
manage to do is attack and lie about me. As always (I've been subjected
to 17 years of this sort of thing, online), it doesn't do the slightest
thing to stop the work I am called to. My argument that brought on all
the galaxies of manure and imbecilic sewer scum attacks is still here,
intact. And that's all that matters. Who cares about all the other
nonsense and verbal diarrhea? Let the nattering nabobs play, pat each
other on the back (to rationalize their sin), and pummel away . . .

It was mid-August 2005-Spring of 2006 with flare-ups
that summer and fall. I sought to end it in September of 2006 and Dave
then sought a "reconciliation" in January 2007 which in retrospect it
seems he just used as a ruse to lure me back in and try and get me to
affirm his whitewashed version of previous events by default.

Even my attempts at reconciliation are a "ruse" . . . you see the
cynical spirit at work here. That is the spirit of the father of lies,
the accuser (and I'm not trying to be melodramatic at all; just matter
of fact); not of the God of the royal commandment and 1 Corinthians 13.
This is not the Spirit of Christ. And this is why reconciliation was
impossible, with his unyielding demand that I must admit I am an
inveterate and deliberate liar, as his first condition. Once I admit
that and bow and kiss his feet, everything's great! Well, hell's gonna
freeze over before I will kowtow and admit (just so he can feel smugly
superior) I was a liar and scumbag, when it was not the case at all. My big outrage was to merely disagree with the man.

I finally
took the emails I wrote to him, edited mentions of him out of them,
edited any of his actual words out of them, and structured the sequences
into three threads that encapsulated the core problems I had with him
and blogged them in the winter and spring of 2007. Those three threads
are now required interaction by him if he truly wants a reconciliation
or not and by all appearances he does not.

I always did want reconciliation (as I do with anyone with whom I have
had a falling-out). I tried everything under the sun: reason, pleading,
endless explanations of prior comments and arguments I made that Shawn
would relentlessly and cavalierly (not to mention quite pompously and
arrogantly) blow off as "grandstanding" or "insincere". Finally, I
removed all replies about him and anything about him at all from my blog
(except a few places where I cite work of his that had some actual value: that he used to do, once upon a time).

At length, I worked with Dr. Art Sippo, a mutual friend, to try to
achieve a breakthrough. He quickly persuaded me to remove the papers,
but of course (shock!) Shawn was absolutely inflexible (but I'm the one with the grudge, you see, while his innumerable flatulent attack-papers remain online to this day).
Now you can all see how he requires these asinine conditions.
Essentially I have to admit that he kicked my butt in the nuclear debate
-- which is untrue -- and that he was absolutely right, and I was
dead-wrong, or else I am necessarily (by the singular Shawn "logic")
dishonest and a liar beyond all doubt. He mocks any and all of my
attempts at reconciliation as insincere.

Nothing can be done with him. I mightily tried (far more than most
people would have had the patience to do). My conscience is perfectly
clear on this. God understands contentious people: that we can't always
get along with them, no matter how hard we try. His present resumption
of personal attacks at the drop of a hat, without the slightest attempt
to hear or interact with my side, is hardly grounds for hope of a
reconciliation. I wish the man well. I have no resentment at all (I
don't waste time with that in my life). I'm simply passionately
responding to nonsense and calumny. May God bless him abundantly in all
things.

In light of that and
other similar issues with other folks (including sad to say the late Fr.
Richard Neuhaus), to say that I have a view of apologetics now as a
rule that is lower than my view of prostitution is no small
exaggeration. But that is another subject altogether for another time.

I like that! My profession is lower than being a whore. Isn't that a wonderfully edifying thought? Even Fr. Neuhaus
wasn't safe from Shawn's self-righteous ire. Now the world's oldest and
most disgusting, loathsome professions are not one and the same. It's a
split ticket. We apologists are the lowest of the low: cain't get no
lower than us'n's!.

But of course ol' Shawn brings no personal or intellectual bias to the present conversation; not at all (and no one could possibly think
that!). No! It's all sweetness and light and rock-solid objectivity
from our friend. I'm over here degrading myself (on a level lower than
the ethics of prostitution) by trying to help folks escape from the
prison of RadCathR nonsense, but it's all worthless, because I supposedly
(like Akin and Shea and others) used one word like a dummy and an
ignoramus; and I must be attacked at every turn with lies and calumnies
for doing so.

Hell, Dave even edited it to put my name in the title! See what I mean about folks who cannot let things go?

. . . Dave continues to add stuff from this thread in a desperate effort to
try and goad responses from us and again courtesy of his selective
prooftexting ala the way folks prooftext magisterial texts or even
Scripture for their own ends. (Albeit nothing said on this thread here
has that sort of status of course!)But since he is seeing this
thread, before you change the settings, I will address this to him
personally and say nothing else on this thread in the foreseeable
future. Here goes...

Hey Dave, the issue I had with Fr. Neuhaus (God rest his soul!) had
NOTHING to do with you whatsoever. It was in the grand scheme of things a
minor matter (as virtually all things which involve someone who passes
on are) and I let it drop a long time ago -mentioning it only in an
aside to Pete on this thread which now I wish I had not. But hey, if you
had any sense of honour or decency, you would not kick dirt on the
grave of a deceased for the sake of your ego.

That's the problem
with someone like you who is not interested in the truth but instead
just spinning anything they can into whatever revisionist light best
suits their inflated ego. I am thinking of going back to where I
reviewed one of his books on Amazon and deleting the review -the thought
of saying anything nice about someone who acts this way is frankly
something I am starting to regret.

. . . I am through on this thread feeding Dave's massive revisionist ego. I
will pray for him that he seeks the help he so badly needs and accept
this as a reminder of why Christian unity in general is such a seemingly
insurmountable mountain and only by God's grace will it ever occur on
this side of the eschaton.

[reply to someone who was mockingly saying they "disagreed" with me; as if no one can ever do so]So you were "Denying The Faith" then,. . .?

Trying to use controversy to create fictitious monsters to then ask
for money to "fight the monsters" is part and parcel of the whole
schtick. I would actually have loved to be proven wrong on this (and
conceivably still could be) but so far, every prediction I made on this
whole episode privately has come to pass.

. . . the problem with those who act the way certain
parties have been is they lose sympathy where the area of possible
misunderstandings are concerned. There is also the issue of objective
manifestation vs. subjective intention, something I tried to explain
until I was blue in the face to no avail. But as it is apropo here, I
will briefly touch on it anew. Essentially, one can say something
meaning one intention that if you look at what is said objectively at
face value conveys a different meaning altogether. So many problems
would not exist if more folks realized that sometimes the way they think
they are coming across is not how they actually are. (And of course
they would have to look as objectively as they could as to how
contextually they come across.) But if you cannot get someone to even consider that they may have run afoul in this area, then you have no
hope of ever getting through to them period and that is what [name] has
seen in the circumstance she encountered with someone whose name shant
be mentioned here.

Flail away, Shawn! God sees everything you are doing . . . . Reply is
perfectly futile at this point. The above is more than enough its' own
refutation and self-condemnation, for anyone with the slightest
acquaintance with New Testament Christian ethics. Shawn would do very
well to heed "traditionalist" Kevin Tierney's words (3-20-13), that apply to him in almost every little detail:

The Internet can be a very edifying realm where individuals exchange
ideas and make things better. It can also be a place of nothing but
urine and vinegar, where egotists obsess about things said almost ten
years ago as if they are fresh battles, and portray even the smallest of
disagreements as lies and willful distortions of the highest order.
Everyone loves the former, and most (except those who thrive on urine
and vinegar as a way to generate traffic or sometimes revenue) avoid the
latter.

I heartily concur with Shawn's statement on his Twitter page (3-17-13):

There are many things good about getting older (and a few not-so-good)
but #1 on the good list: you care a lot less about what others think!

Thank heavens, I learned this years ago. If I hadn't, the likes of
Slash-and-Burn Shawn and an army of additional irrational, facts- and
logic-challenged critics would have easily drummed me out of apologetics
a long time ago (never to look or go back again). Fortunately, I didn't
take up this vocation to win a popularity contest in the first place
(or to become rich: another apparent misconception of many: at least in
my case).

--- Marcus Grodi (director of The Coming Home Network, and host of the EWTN television show: The Journey Home)

I highly recommend his work, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism, which I find to be thoroughly orthodox, well-written, and effective for the purpose of making Catholic truth more understandable and accessible to the public at large.

God bless you in your indefatigable labors on behalf of the Faith! Only God knows how many lives your efforts have touched with the truth. . . . God bless you and give you joy and strength in persevering in your important ministry.

There is someone out there who says what I have to say much better than I ever could -- the smartest Catholic apologist I know of -- Dave Armstrong.

--- Amy Welborn (Catholic author and blogmaster)

I love your books, love your site, love everything you do. God bless you in your work. I'm very grateful for all you've done, and for all you make available. If someone pitches a hard question at me, I go first to your site. Then I send the questioner directly to the page that best answers the question. I know it's going to be on your site.

--- Mike Aquilina (Catholic apologist and author of several books)

People regularly tell me how much they appreciate your work. This new book sounds very useful. Your website is incredible and I recommend it regularly to new Catholics.

--- Al Kresta (Host of Kresta in the Afternoon [EWTN], author of Why Do Catholics Genuflect? and other books)

Dave Armstrong's book A Biblical Defense of Catholicism was one of the first Catholic apologetics books that I read when I was exploring Catholicism. Ever since then, I have continued to appreciate how he articulates the Catholic Faith through his blog and books. I still visit his site when I need a great quote or clarification regarding anything . . . Dave is one of the best cyber-apologists out there.--- Dr. Taylor Marshall (apologist and author of The Crucified Rabbi)

I love how Dave makes so much use of the Scriptures in his arguments, showing that the Bible is fully compatible with Catholicism, even more plausibly so than it is with Protestantism.. . . Dave is the hardest working Catholic apologist I know. He is an inspiration to me.

--- Devin Rose (apologist and author of The Protestant's Dilemma, 28 May 2012 and 30 Aug. 2013)Dave Armstrong['s] website is an amazing treasure trove representing hours–yea a lifetime of material gathered to defend Catholic doctrine. Over the years Dave has gathered the evidence for Catholic teaching from just about every source imaginable. He has the strength not only to understand the Catholic faith, but to understand the subtleties and arguments of his Protestant opponents.--- Fr. Dwight Longenecker (author and prominent blogmaster, 6-29-12)

You are a very friendly adversary who really does try to do all things with gentleness and respect. For this I praise God.--- Nathan Rinne (Lutheran apologist [LC-MS] )

You are one of the most thoughtful and careful apologists out there.

Dave, I disagree with you a lot, but you're honorable and gentlemanly, and you really care about truth. Also, I often learn from you, even with regard to my own field. [1-7-14]

--- Dr. Edwin W. Tait (Anglican Church historian)

Dave Armstrong writes me really nice letters when I ask questions. . . . Really, his notes to me are always first class and very respectful and helpful. . . . Dave Armstrong has continued to answer my questions in respectful and helpful ways. I thank the Lord for him.

--- The late Michael Spencer (evangelical Protestant), aka "The Internet Monk", on the Boar's Head Tavern site, 27 and 29 September 2007

Dave Armstrong is a former Protestant Catholic who is in fact blessedly free of the kind of "any enemy of Protestantism is a friend of mine" coalition-building . . . he's pro-Catholic (naturally) without being anti-Protestant (or anti-Orthodox, for that matter).

---"CPA": Lutheran professor of history [seehis site]: unsolicited remarks of 12 July 2005

Dave is basically the reason why I am the knowledgeable and passionate Catholic I am today. When I first decided in college to learn more about my Catholic faith, I read all of the tracts at Catholic Answers ... but then I needed more. I needed to move beyond the basics. Dave was the only one who had what I needed. I poured over his various dialogues and debates and found the answers to even the most obscure questions. His work showed me that there really is an answer to every conceivable question of and objection to the Catholic faith. That was a revelation for me, and it is one I will never forget. My own apologetical style (giving point-by-point rebuttals, relying heavily on Scripture, and being as thorough as possible) is influenced very heavily by his, and to this day I continue to learn and grow a great deal through his work explaining and defending the Catholic faith.

--- Nicholas Hardesty (DRE and apologist, 28 May 2015)

Dave has been a full-time apologist for years. He’s done much good for thousands of people.

You have a lot of good things to say, and you're industrious. Your content often is great. You've done yeoman work over the decades, and many more people [should] profit from your writing. They need what you have to say.

I know you spend countless hours writing about and defending the Church. There may not be any American apologist who puts in more labor than you. You've been a hard-working laborer in the vineyard for a long time.

I like the way you present your stuff Dave ... 99% of the time.--- Protestant Dave Scott, 4-22-14 on my personal Facebook page.

Who is this Dave Armstrong? What is he really like? Well, he is affable, gentle, sweet, easily pleased, very appreciative, and affectionate . . . I was totally unprepared for the real guy. He's a teddy bear, cuddly and sweet. Doesn't interrupt, sits quietly and respectfully as his wife and/or another woman speaks at length. Doesn't dominate the conversation. Just pleasantly, cheerfully enjoys whatever is going on about him at the moment and lovingly affirms those in his presence. Most of the time he has a relaxed, sweet smile.

--- Becky Mayhew (Catholic), 9 May 2009, on the Coming Home Network Forum, after meeting me in person.

Every so often, I recommend great apostolates, websites, etc. And I am very careful to recommend only the very best that are entirely Catholic and in union with the Church. Dave Armstrong’s Biblical Evidence for Catholicism site is one of those. It is a veritable treasure chest of information. Dave is thorough in his research, relentlessly orthodox, and very easy to read.

Discussions with you are always a pleasure, agreeing or disagreeing; that is a rarity these days.

--- David Hemlock (Eastern Orthodox Christian), 4 November 2014.

What I've appreciated, Dave, is that you can both dish out and take argumentative points without taking things personally. Very few people can do that on the Internet. I appreciate hard-hitting debate that isn't taken personally.

--- Dr. Lydia McGrew (Anglican), 12 November 2014.

Dave Armstrong is a friend of mine with whom I've had many discussions. He is a prolific Catholic writer and apologist. If you want to know what the Catholic Church really believes, Dave is a good choice. Dave and I have our disagreements, but I'll put my arm around him and consider him a brother. There is too much dishonesty among all sides in stating what the "other side" believes. I'll respect someone who states fairly what the other believes.

--- Richard Olsen (Evangelical Protestant), 26 November 2012.

Dave writes a powerful message out of deep conviction and careful study. I strongly recommend the reading of his books. While not all readers will find it possible to agree with all his conclusions, every reader will gain much insight from reading carefully a well-crafted view that may be different from their own.

--- Jerome Smith (Evangelical Protestant and editor of The New Treasury of Scripture Knowledge), 26 May 2015 on LinkedIn.

I think it's really inspirational, Dave, that you pursue your passion and calling in this way, understanding that it's financially difficult, but making it work anyway. You and I don't agree, but I have to respect the choice as opposed to being some sort of corporate sell out that may make decent money but lives without purpose. You can tell your grandkids what you did with your life, whereas some corporate VP will say that he helped drive a quarterly stock price up briefly and who cares? It's cool to see.

Recommended Catholic Apologetics Links and Icons

Protestantism: Critical Reflections of an Ecumenical Catholic

Orthodoxy & Citation Permission

To the best of my knowledge, all of my theological writing is "orthodox" and not contrary to the official dogmatic and magisterial teaching of the Catholic Church. In the event of any (unintentional) doctrinal or moral error on my part having been undeniably demonstrated to be contrary to the Sacred Tradition of the Catholic Church, I will gladly and wholeheartedly submit to the authority and wisdom of the Church (Matthew 28:18-20; 1 Timothy 3:15).

All material contained herein is written by Dave Armstrong (all rights reserved) unless otherwise noted. Please retain full copyright, URL, and author information when downloading and/or forwarding this material to others. This information is intended for educational, spiritual enrichment, recreational, non-profitpurposes only, and is not to be exchanged for monetary compensation under any circumstances (Exodus 20:15-16).